It looks like a few are starting to get on the same page with this battle.
Fortunately there is more then one engineer who might help if they are fed the right information and care to do so.
I fed Seth some very inaccurate information on the force down from good brakes alone. It came up around 230 pounds before the tires slide .
At those numbers a three dip would be well over ten thousands but I only checked to 150 pounds. You would not want to know what a four dip is.
Mike will probably be down in the next few weeks I can feed some data on the ball cap move movement on a heavy sedan while driving and breaking when he comes.
If any of you space cowboys out there know of a high test epoxy that would take the heat and vibration of a mount similar to the 26 glued to the hogs head and block with a shim pack between would be an effective, easy, out of sight fix with some good engineering.
The 230 pounds downforce during braking due to the reaction torque of the rear axle through the torque tube isn't but one of the forces acting during braking. That half-G stop also means that the torque tube is pulling rearward with half the weight of the car - 750 pounds for a 1500 pound car.
If you rev the engine and stab the low pedal and achieve that same half-G when accelerating, you'll have 750 pounds pushing forward and the 230 pounds pushing up.
That pan, whether three-dip or four-dip is about the farthest thing from a "box beam" or C-channel with the huge widening where the flywheel is.
Others have alluded to the "flexible system" and how stiffening a component could result in failure of another component. They may be right but I fail to see it.
What I think is that in a huge lazy engine where friction is high compared to output - such as the T's engine, that keeping the main bearings aligned has got to be getting free power, longer life, and minimized maintenance.
Seth,your calulations are in error. Try again. This time take all the suspension parts into it.
I wouldn't say that I alluded that stiffening something would result in failure of another component. I said it as a crystal clear 'who the heck knows'?
The frame can be twisted near like a pretzel with no adverse effects almost naturally, Ford made a big deal about how the three point tie down of the engine was superior engineering that allowed flexure on rugged roads and still performed. When they made frames 'stiffer' and designed engines stiffer, they invented....motor mounts!
I also agree with 'stiffer is better'. But with the 'ears' of the pan bolted tight to the frame, what actually gives? High school geometry says that if one side of the frame 'dips' by an angle, then the mounting bracket is going to dip by the same degree amount?
May be worrying about nothing, the ears may in fact flex that amount and handle the flexure in stride! Just don't know.
Old story, won't know until tried but I do agree with all that Paul has done, and a girdle is one way to get stiffness....doesn't take much metal to do it, get it as far out from the axis as possible.
Sometime this winter I plan on removing rhe engine on a 23 Roadster to realign the transmission shaft, something changed this past driving season. I have some good spots out back to give the frame some good twist, be intresting to see what happens to the ears as I spring load the rear motor mounts on rubber pads without side bolts
I don't have a car with ridgid rear mounts, possibly someone could run a test with the orignal set up, this might help with comparsions of what happens when the car goes through rough terrain
One thing that sticks in my mind is the machine shop owner north of Vancouver Washington. Who told me that 26 engines are almost always more worn out then earlier ones. They use the same mounting system as an early T.
Another point you would not know George is the rear flange of the crank, the rear of the brake drum, the front flange of the main shaft,and the front flange of the drive plate are almost always bent. In my thinking and testing flexure is not a good idea.
Paul - I've been following these studies and testing of yours very carefully, and I'm sure many others have too. I have a lot to learn about Model T's, but I AM learning.
From following what you have reported about your tests, and with what others have contributed, here is (for what little it's worth) here is the result of how this (and your original thread) has affected my thinking:
I now have, stuck in my head, the thinking that in a perfect world, the hogshead should be part of the engine block casting (not possible I know) which would make the entire powerplant, including everything back to the 4th main, RIGID. I keep wondering how to design/install some type of bracing that would afford such a rigid structure. That is, to me, the reason why the '26-'27 had the hogshead bolted with two cap screws, to the back of the engine block. I keep thinking of some type of bracing (on pre-'26-'27 engines) like from the two rear head bolts maybe, back down to "something" near the rear of the hogshead or ball cap that would tend to make the whole powerplant nearly as rigid as if it were all one casting.
The other thing that I have stuck in my head is that because two of the main design features of the Model T is the three point powerplant mounting and especially the designed-in flexibility of the frame, it makes no sense to me to try to add any rigidity to the engine block/transmission/hogshead by use of any type of supports, crossmembers, bracing, etc. attached to this flexible frame. (Kind of like bracing a building against a tree that sways with the wind.)
Anyway, I think I have "grasped" the concept of what needs to be done; it's just a question of how to do it, right? There MUST be a way!
Our good old American ingenuity will work it out with some engineers help, and DATA.
I think there is TOO much THINKING going on and NOT enough DRIVING! The Model "T" has lasted 100 years the way it is.
oh my goodness...when the ford motor company designed the model t i am sure that it wasn't for a 90-100 year life span...they could not forsee the mid-life abuse and neglect [1930s-40s] and the resurrection of the car as a toy for the fans of this century.it is what it is..a product of the country emerging from the industrial revolution..good for the time but it will never hold up to the bright light of today's engineering...if you guys are so frustrated, try something useful and up to date..like these guys <www.buddfab.com>. now that's engineering!!!!!
Your post should read a little different Denny,
We made the T run for the last hundred years with untold hours of repair because the T is an American Icon. Cranks, transmission drums,and other parts are getting very expensive, and in shorter supply. I would like to see our Icon go on for another hundred years rather then setting in a museum unused.
Something as simple as the tie rod method mentioned on the previous thread would be a hell of an improvement, and allow you to force the ball cap into vertical adjustment. Lots of people have the ability to do it.
It may look like a lot of thinking and brainstorming to try and find a better path, but as Paul says...lots of the critical parts are getting harder to find, and as repos go...quite expensive! Sure, they are going to eat parts as time goes along but if we can share thoughts and ideas perhaps we can have a breakthrough that gets us all more miles out of what we have.
The beauty of doing it by forum is that a solution is then not known by a precious few, and the thoughts and the solution are here for all to see as it evolves.
I'll throw a new factor into the mix, and ask some of our crank friendly friends if it means anything.......
I have reviewed the process sheet for crank manufacture, and discovered once again something that may mean something, but then again may be nothing only because I have never ground a T crank.
The process sheet calls for zeroing out the crank on the journal centers, and then finding size on the center bearing first and then working right and then working left. Make sense to others? Or, is this just another sign that they had a work around for something that they had difficulty with such as controlling coaxial tolerencing?
Would seem to me that with working right and then left they were hoping to hold axial runout tight by splitting the difference?
Again, curious minds want to know
There are lots of sharp boys out there much sharper then I on the crank issue. A few points for thought.
Even if you built an absolutely bullet proof crank for a T with a four main block and left the ball cap pre 26 style the weakest point would be just at the rear radius of the main shaft flange and the bolts into iron from the crank to the flywheel as I see it.
This next point I have not told lots of people now I'm telling the world.
When I refurbished the the 26 engine after the two peace the crank in my 22 I discovered that some time in the past the main bearings had been redone. The rear main on the block side had about 40 degrees of babbitt not quite filling the cavity enough for proper machining. Being short of green I decided to re bed the crank as it was except-able and had worked for many years previous.
Using simple methods the transmission and engine were balanced and aligned. For several years now that setup has worked with a Z head, disk brakes, and a heavy over and under with no adjustment of the bearings. I normally drive in the 45 to 48 range some times more but I don't like to.
If you don't have it you might want to get a copy of The model T Ford Club of America Transmission repairing and restoring. 1990.
lots of pictures from the beginning to the end hogs heads. Looks like 13 different total.
At the beginning of this thread I had a suspicion of Henry not warning about the use of a four dip on a pre 26 design.
Not knowing that a four dip was installed on a 24 until the thread was started.
After finding that out I started to think of why Henry would do that. Its a flat out lie.
Its mechanically impossible to remove the bracing designed into a three dip and and install a four dip on a pre 26 design.
If you catch someone in one lie then you start looking for more. THEN the peaces of the puzzle started to fit.
An oversight? no way----- not tested, no way----the pan on a T is the single hardest part to make with over fifty operations needed to make it and it is the single most important for engine longevity.
There are pictures of Henry testing springs with many warnings NOT to use counterfeit parts. Its much harder to build a test machine for that then testing pan strength.
In my business the engineer is God like. If an engineers stamp is on a plan you build it his way not what you might want to do with inspectors making sure you follow the engineers instructions to the letter.
Henry did not have this problem, did he? He built it HIS way.
Whether you purists know it or not SETH did you a hell of a favor. From the first time I sent him a pictures of sticks on a pan for the truss idea he encouraged me, offered suggestions, instructed me how to test, and sometimes scolded me for my mistakes.
If I would have sent that same picture of sticks to Jack, the reply would have been pour it in concrete, the T was designed to flex, Henry knew what he was doing.
HE SURE DID, The T was purposely left to flex for the purpose of selling parts all the way to the end. The brake drum was purposely left without the shoes all the way to the end.
So back to the very provable lie that has cost every T owner to this day. Sure as hell worked for a hundred years until a dumb builder stumbled on to it wanting to test an idea.
Henry cleared his shelfs of three dip pans then changed in 24 to four dips already in production. By installing it on the 24 the green light was on for anyone to use it on the pre 26 design. He made one bunch of green buy doing this selling parts well into the future.
I wonder how his stock holders felt, or dealers, or worst of all widows from the second world war who could have used an extra dollar to raise there children. I wonder how many Ts were left on route 66 with all people had with broken parts. If you think Henry would not do it to his loyal T owners your nuts.
I took one brace from a T yesterday spent a few hours drilling out the two center rivets on the front motor mount and not very carefully making an adjustable brace. It tested 0.005 at a hundred pounds and 0.008 at a hundred fifty pounds. exactly the same as a three dip. I then loosened the adjustment and retested. It was 0.012 and 0.019 at the same weights. Remember a 26 setup is 0.001 and 0.0016--- A truss is 0.002 and 0.003---- at 200 pounds a truss is 0.004
A problem common to old Ford engines and old men.
VIAGRA appears to be a good solution for most old men.
Are we in agreement that Henry solved the problem with the changes introduced in 1926? By the way, I totally disagree with the statement above about greater wear on 26 engines. My experience has been just the opposite.
Rigidity is first provided by the engine bolted solidly to the frame. Rigidity is provided by the pan being bolted to the block and the hogs head, both heavy castings. The only weak point is the hinge at the back of the block and front of the hogs head (pre 26-27). Henry pointed the way with the brackets that tie the block to the hogs head. A good start might be to produce heavier brackets, say made of tool steel and about 3/8" thick? Think about it, 2 heavy tool steel brackets, one on each side of the engine across the hinge point to provide engine rigidity. Wouldn't that do it?
I use 1/2 inch plasma cut L brackets on my truss from mild steel.
If you take the pan line through the center of the crank and call it the floor of a building then turn the engine over and call the drain hole the peak of the roof of the building the most effective brace is there.
If you then turn the engine back to horizontal and again use the top of the hogs head as the peak of the roof of the building the most effective point of a brace is there. Just as Henery did with the two bolts at the end.
I have a "belly band" that wraps around the bottom of a the engine-transmission pan and hooks over the frame at each side to help in reacting the driveshaft torque. Ironically, it came off a 26 coupe being hot rodded.
However, most Model T's are pre 1926 and are still operating with their original pans. It appears they are adequate for the job despite concerns to the contrary.
Your going to get only so many stress cycles Ted If you stick some rockies, disks, transmissions, or use bad alignment the life of your crank and transmission parts is going to decrease.
Paul, I won't bite nor buy it. I'm old fashioned enough to just put the right pan on the right engine,and drive it sensibly like Herery meant for it to be driven. See you down the road.
If you were in the drug testing business Jack I bet you got lots of Christmas cards from attorneys telling you what a good job you were doing.
I made petroleum fuels,and never had a complaint. I straighten my pans and use them,as originally intended. You can hang all the bridgeing on yours you want. I just don't think it is a problem worth all this effort.
I have followed your posts and work on bracing the Ford motor. Sometimes, we should take stock and not take ourselves too serious.
Can't really want to be part of your 'war' as you have titled the posts on engine bracing, but when you are figuring Henry in your words...
""HE SURE DID, The T was purposely left to flex for the purpose of selling parts all the way to the end. The brake drum was purposely left without the shoes all the way to the end.""
...just took me the wrong way as being a bit untrue.
So I have to take an 'excuse me' to your opinions and give you mine.
Henry make the T affordable, the T was the low cost product, low cost but with highest quality for the $. Customers understood, and bought millions of the Ford for that reason. Others tried to copy Ford, like the Chevrolet "490" so named because that was the price point to storm Ford, $490.
To that end, the engineering Henry put into the 1908 technology of the T, and the fantastic mfg and engineering efforts to produce millions, lowering the cost from original touring car selling for $950 in 1908 to the same (improved) touring car selling for $380 in 1926 is a auto mfg feat never again to be seen.
Many opinions on how to 'better' Henry's design led to the start of aftermarket parts and accessories. Lots of 'belly bands' and 'struts' and other do-dads were marketed for the engine stiffening ideas. Here is one by Dunn, the makers of those counter weights for the crank.
Note the Dunn design uses the wishbone to provide more locking, and the comment in the copy 'other supports hold the motor 'up', the Dunn holds it steady and firm.'
Nor was the Ford the only low cost car with shaky motor. Here is a brace for the Chev 490, it suffered from locked up clutch due to the motor sagging.
'Our support will draw the clutch and flywheel back into alignment'!
So noted that many others have pondered the 'faults' of others work, those of course were after the 'green' too. Lots of accessory parts to be sold to a big market of Ford owners.
I take heart in your efforts, alas, though, those millions of T's are no longer rolling out of assembly plants onto the market for your brace idea. Seems you're a tad late for a new accessory motor brace
You've made some pretty strong accusations that Henry was knowingly trying to screw his customers into spending money on parts. You claim it is a provable lie, but I don't see you providing any evidence of a lie.
The thing that you are forgetting is that the Model T was an optimal design - for what it was designed for. Yes, a car like a Packard is technically a much better built car than a Model T, but it is a horrible design if one of your design goals is to make it as inexpensive as possible. There is no way you were going to build a car like a Packard and sell it for $300.
To accomplish the goal of building a reliable car for the lowest cost possible, most of the parts on the Model T are designed to do their job - and nothing more. Building extra strength into a part costs money, and that is something that Ford did not want to do. In my opinion, Ford did an excellent job with the design of the Model T. They built a car that was very reliable for next to nothing.
I have no doubt that the 3 dip pan is a marginal design. I have no doubt that the 4 dip pan is a weaker design than the 3 dip pan. However, I think that Ford came out with the 4 dip pan in 25 to make it easier to get to the rear main bearing and the #4 connecting rod without having to pull the engine. This resulted in a weaker design that was fixed in the 26 model by adding the bolts to the back of the block. No lie to the customer, just a change to the design that was then found to need improvement. There is a history of this taking place on the Model T. Just look at the early rear axles. The initial design was very weak. They went through numerous designs of axle housings trying to get a more reliable design while trying to keep the cost as low as possible. If you take a look at the change notices for various parts you will see that Ford was constantly making changes. Many times it was to save a few cents. Many times a change will be made, then a month later the part will be changed back to the way it was before the change was made. Ford seemed to do a lot of experimentation this way.
If your going to claim a lie, then your going to need to show some proof. So far I haven't seen any.
If a over hundred percent strength improvement of the most important part of a T is not proof in 1924 then you are blind.
I took a part off a T that Henry made and improved the strength of the the ball cap over a hundred percent in a few hours AND MADE IT ADJUSTABLE because I knew where to look by testing on the first try. Not in millions of cars.
There is no way that Henry did not know this after millions of cars built. Believe what you want to believe. It would have cost him pennies in his day.
Henry could have put one brace on the pan and my opinion would be different.
There is lots more but I will hold that back if I need it.
Instead of all this ranting,why don't you publish your "findings" and submit them to some of the respected members who can look them over and see if what you're saying is true or not? Try passing them under Fred Houston's eyes and perhaps some of the Montanna crowd? It is very easy to rationalize one's position and prove/disprove anything. Please don't take this as a personal attack,as it isn't. I've never seen a summary of all your comparrisons and I don't think anyone else on here has either.
A good rational statement Jack, my apologies for being an ass.
After I recover from some "medicine" from my nerves I will post it tomorrow.
This morning I checked a four dip to the 230 pound push down I had never done before. It was 0.029".
It dawned on me an easy almost totally out of site way to fix the problem would be to talk to a cable company for the right size cable with threaded ends swedged on each end the right length.
Wrap it around the engine just below the water jacket so the cable ends would hang above the hogs head each side of the mag post.
Two brackets would bolt to the top of the hogs head to catch the threaded cable ends.
With the engine one its nose you could force the ball cap up with the cable or down with a wedge between the hogs head and block.
Then put some Devcon in a sandwich bag and work it in between the hogs head and block.
The Devcon would set, and would only be used on compression for the up push on the ball cap. The cable would be kept tight for the down push on the ball cap. Two or four holes in the top of the hogs head would be the only damage to the stock T setup. The engineers can correct me on this one.
My bride is getting testy, I will post more later.
This test is the modified truss. It consistes of push up. push down, and an extra dial placed on top of the hogs head to see the amout of give with different push weights.
pounds-- up---------------down--------hogs head
This test is same as above only its a 26 setup with the two bolts useing the same weak four dip pan.
This test is a three dip pan on a pre 26 style block
This test is the same weak four dip as used with the truss and the 26 setup. A real good four dip tests slightly better. On a pre 26 block.
dial would not return to 0 pan was bent 0.0029 at 150 pounds
One last post. I wanted to find out how much weight was carried by the ball cap with transmission weight.
The way I did it was stuck the engine on its nose without the hogs head. I put a dial on the forth main shaft and set it to 0.
I then turned the engine upside down and the shaft dropped 0.013 as I recall. I then turned the engine right side up and the shaft dropped the same 0.013.
Without rotating the engine it was put in the test cart with a 3/4" hole below the forth main shaft.
I then used a rod tack welded to the lift platform through the 3/4" hole adjusted the scale to 0 and raised the fourth main shaft 0.013
It came to 11 pounds without the bands. I threw in a pound for the bands.
Thank you Paul for trying. The problem is there are very few crankshafts in good shape available, the general concensus is,two piece shafts are caused by misalignment of the 4th main which is subject to many forces pushing it out of place due to very flexible mounting. In its day a new crank was not a big deal, millions ran for a long time and if it broke, so what. Today we try to prevent 2 pieces because it is rapidly becoming a big deal. Flexible shafts can and have been made, witness the Pontiac drive shaft with no U joints, however the T crank is worth saving THANKS PAUL
As owner of a two pice crankshaft,all i can say is THANKS!!!!!!! Bud.
I ran this test on a very nice four dip as you can see the numbers are better.
The hogs head on a 150 pounds should be 0.010 not 0.015
I want to thank Michael Seager very much.
He flew down from Vernonia, picked me up, and flew back to Vernonia. We ran some tests on a heavy sedan with rockies and a four dip with a dial on the hogs head, and then he flew me back, fun day!
With out a baseline to know where the center of the crank should be we set the dial at 0 with the car setting on level ground.
We then try ed several different things. Most of the time the dial would show up to a 0.0065 drop in the fourth main.
If you started from a stop hard on the gas it would change to about a 0.003 rise in the fourth main until the engine ran out of power then it would come back to close to 0
Going down a hill on compression it would drop the fourth about 0.006
One interesting observation was when you hit the rockies hard at speed the you did not lower the fourth as much as expected because you were pushing hard on the brake pedal and it counteracted the push down on the fourth main.
Another observation was backing down a hill then hitting the rockies would raise the fourth about 0.015 because of both the brakes pushing up on the torque tube and the push from the brake pedal.
The simple fact is the four dip is far to weak on a pre 26 setup. You can align it all you want but it simply will move all over with different driving conditions.
So? It is a Model T, too late to reengineer, just enjoy.
Paul,please understand I aint a engineer.But I do have a couple questions.Are you performing the test on the same 2 pans in your lab?
Could it be that the repeated testing is fatiqueing the pans and may be altering the test results?
Could this be the reason some folkes say leave out the 2 side bolts on the motor mounts?
From what I understand the T's suspension is designed for alot of flexing,say crossing a ditch or whatever.If the pan is braced in this manner,would it pass the stress's of the flexing to say the crossmember at the front or the rear 1?
As I said,I aint a engineer and dont claim to be 1.But if you take the flex out only part of something that is meant to flex as a assembly,the stress's would in theory be passed along to another part.
I know when I drive my TT over to a neighbors house I turn around in front of his barn.There is a embankment there.If I happen to be proping my hand on the front of the dump bed as i make the right hand turn passing over this embankment I can feel the truck flex side to side.
The reason that the fourth main was not pressed down under braking as much as expected because the torque tube is pushing the fourth main - with 4 times as much force as the torque from the rear axle, far more effect than you standing on that pedal.
Thanks for those results. I'm jealous of your air-taxi rides and give Mike my best. Pictures soon, please.
To everyone interested in this thread,
I can appreciate everyone's viewpoint. The T is an amazing machine and is undoubtedly forgiving. I can appreciate those that want to have the car just the way it rolled off the assembly line. But I guess I sympathize most with the folks that really want to try to drive the wheels off their cars.
Crankshafts break. In stock engines. Sometimes it destroys the block. If you have a driver that you want to run smoother, faster, and longer, then I think you need to consider some kind of stiffener for the pre-improved engines.
Thanks again Paul!
Yes, many of the tests were done on the same weak four dip. But as you can see the huge difference when that four dip was bolted to the 26 setup, or the truss.
Thats why I made the last tested post with a fresh nice four dip tested once.
I am now fairly sure that was an early four dip with fairly sharp bends. I think the "weaker" pan is a later one with the dies wearing down in the bending process.
We were cruising on pavement about 40mph if you backed off the throttle just a little the fourth would drop about 3 or 4 thousands. Then if you gave it slightly more throttle you would raise it by about the same amount.
The only way you could keep it at one place was to stay on a level road at an even speed. And I am sure that the center line of the Fourth was below the centerline of the crank in the block.
Are us modrens maybe building too little play in the tranny bushings? It's been a few years since I've had it out, but it seems to me the Fronty head, Chevy crank, distorted and cracked 4-dip with only the little doublers for support, had quite a bit of slop at the 4th main. I could move it around quite a bit. to center it.
Yeh, low is noisy.
I am sure the cable method of repair I mentioned earlier would be very effective.
I might do it myself and test it just to prove the point.